(The title of this post differs slightly from when it was first put up this morning.)
Lots of discussion in the blogosphere these past few days about this Eugene Robinson column in the Washington Post: Tiger’s validation complex. Robinson, who is African-American, is troubled by more than the famous golfer’s equally famous multiple infidelities. He’s troubled by the type of woman that Tiger seems to have pursued:
Here’s my real question, though: What’s with the whole Barbie thing?
No offense to anyone who actually looks like Barbie, but it really is striking how much the women who’ve been linked to Woods resemble one another. I’m talking about the long hair, the specific body type, even the facial features. Mattel could sue for trademark infringement.
This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story — and one of the most disappointing. He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn’t variety but some kind of validation…
…the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes — some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an “official” standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive.
His taste in mistresses leaves the impression of a man who is, deep down, both insecure and image-conscious — a control freak even when he’s committing “transgressions.”
There is a long and painful history in the African-American community revolving around the penchant that a great many successful black men have had for pursuing white women. Indeed, the problem (if we can name it that) is a staple of magazine articles and fiction aimed at African-American women. I’m not a commenter on race, so it’s best that I merely note that the reaction Robinson is having is connected to a bitter and complicated history that is a good deal older than the now-disgraced superstar golfer.
But there’s a part of Robinson’s piece that isn’t just about race; it’s about the way in which men of all ethnicities use certain types of women as “trophies.” It is almost axiomatic that female beauty is a commodity which men employ to boost their status with other men. I wrote about this in April 2006, in a post about men, women, homosociality and weight. An excerpt:
Men are taught to find “hot” what other men find “hot.” The whole notion of a “trophy girlfriend” is based on the reality that a great many men use female desireability to establish status with other men. And in our current cultural climate where thinness is idealized, a slender partner is almost always going to be worth more than a heavy one. For men who have not yet extricated themselves from homosocial competition, their own self-esteem and sense of intra-male status may decline in direct proportion to their girlfriend’s weight gain.
Let me stress that this is absolutely not women’s problem to solve! My goal is not to make women who gain weight feel bad; protecting a fragile male ego is not a woman’s responsibility. The key thing men need to do is get honest about their own desire to use female desireability to establish status in the eyes of other men. And here’s where pro-feminist men can do a terrific service by challenging one another and holding each other accountable for the ways in which we are tempted to use our wives and girlfriends as trophies.
“Whiteness” can function similarly to “thin-ness”, particularly for men of color. America has a long and bloody history of violence towards dark-skinned men who were even suspected of a sexual interest in white women. For some men of color, to be with a white woman — particularly one who embodies the all-American “Barbie” ideal — is to say to the world “See, I’ve made it. You can’t touch me; I’ve achieved sufficient power and wealth so that I can have ‘access’ to what was once forbidden and could have gotten my grandfather lynched.” I’m not saying that was Tiger’s motive (Robinson is, and he’s in a better position than I to do so). I am saying that bedding whiteness, in the misogynistic homosocial economy, gives status points.
One of the important challenges we all need to take up is that of separating out what aspects of our desires are organic to us, and what aspects are socially constructed and reinforced. Men who are afraid to date heavier women “because of what my buddies will say” or women who are reluctant to date shorter men “because of how we’ll look together in public” do have, I think, an obligation to distinguish their fear of losing status from their actual desires. As we all know, the human libido is flexible but not infinitely so; it can be influenced but not entirely molded by culture and experience. Most of us have preferences and types, as I wrote in 2005, that are to some degree essential to us:
…feminism is not hostile to the body, nor to human sexual responses to the body. Feminism does ask the hard questions about why our culture suggests only some kinds of bodies are worthy of being deemed attractive! Feminism is critical of the extraordinarily narrow range of women’s bodies depicted as beautiful and desirable in the culture. But there’s a difference between speaking out against the ways in which popular culture limits the definition of beauty and desire, and rejecting the idea of lust and physical attraction altogether.
Most of us — not all — have certain physical “types” to which we are often drawn…A “type” does become a problem when certain physical attributes are presumptively linked to certain anti-feminist qualities (submissiveness, docility, and so forth). Most feminists are rightly troubled, for example, by white men who have an “Asian fetish” that is clearly linked to fantasies about submission and sexuality. But a man who simply prefers brunettes, without attaching any cultural baggage to his attraction, is not violating any vital feminist principle. We are allowed our individual quirks and our individual preferences, as long as those quirks and preferences are not linked to racist and sexist assumptions that certain types of women “know how to treat a man better.”
I’d add the Tiger corollary to that, which is that individual preferences are fine insofar as they are not thinly (sorry) disguised excuses for pursuing a particular type of woman in order to gain validation and status in the real or imagined eyes of other men. Untangling what we want sexually from what we ourselves want in order to meet cultural or familial expectations is a universal challenge. Unlike my postmodernist friends, I do believe we have an identity and desires that are deeper than our culture; our sexuality, although more malleable than many imagine, isn’t entirely a tabula rasa. (If that were so, there’d be far fewer GLBT kids growing up in conservative Christian households than there in fact are.)
Part of becoming a responsible, sexually mature adult is doing the often difficult work of discerning what one craves inherently from what one has been taught one ought to crave, and what one has learned will win approval from parents or peers. It ain’t rocket science, but it isn’t easy either. And while Tiger may “organically” crave youthful white women with Barbie-esque proportions, one suspects that for all his achievements, he has not yet come close to gaining insight and understanding of the role sexuality plays in his life. And the consequences of lacking that understanding are, as we have seen in his case, devastating.
Another great blog post Mr. Schwyzer. You are spot on in your analysis and I appreciate the fact that you know when you aren’t necessarily the best person to speak on a particular topic. As an African American gay man I know all to well the intersection of homosociality and how it influences men in our society. Whether it’s the pervasive no fats/no fems in the gay community or white men who want a stepford wife or black men who want as lil wayne says “a long haired chick redbone.”
The entire Tiger is sad but there are lessons to be learned and conversations to be had when the most famous athlete in the world and one of the most wealthiest has not 1, not 2, but 10 mistresses.
One of the important challenges we all need to take up is that of separating out what aspects of our desires are organic to us, and what aspects are socially constructed and reinforced.
I don’t think it’s ever easy to determine what’s organic. The example you gave, where someone is specifically fearing judgment from his or her friends, is pretty easy to notice. But a lot of people will say things like, “I’m just not attracted to black men, it’s just a personal preference,” and honestly think this hasn’t been shaped by systemic racism and the environment he or she grew up in.
Actually, I’m not so sure that any preference for a particular group isn’t shaped by outside forces – there are so many variations of people within a group that to give them a blanet thumbs-up or thumbs-down is suspect and should be questioned. Doesn’t mean you should force yourself to date someone from that group, but at least be honest about where these “personal preferences” come from.
Men who are afraid to date heavier women “because of what my buddies will sayâ€
- It always surprises me, Hugo, how invested you are in maintaining this myth.
Whatever some books might say, a vast majority of men does not think or act this way. The only place I keep hearing this strange thing – and very frequently, too – is your blog.
Without directly addressing the merits of your broader points, Hugo, I’m not so sure how applicable this analysis is to the Tiger situation. First, take a look at Tiger’s wife: Elin Noredgren, and then the pics of his alleged paramours. If anything, a lot of them look notably less “Barbie” than Elin does. Second, as the fallout from this situation has made pretty obvious, I would question the degree to which Tiger was pursuing these women with an eye towards his status with other men. It seems to me that he likely would much rather these sundry “transgressions” never see the light of day, and I imagine that his life and prospective financial and career portfolio would be much the better if they had not. Granted, he may have been driven to pursue that particular cachet either in a narrower, non-public context (among buddies or staff or other men who just happened to be there), trying to say “Yeah, look what I can land”, without much concern about it going public. Or his drive towards upping his portfolio in this particular “economy” may have been as much motivated by his own perspective about what he could “land” as opposed to what others thought. But it still, I think, calls the homosocial aspect into question.
Thirdly, again, this situation I think is very distinct from the homosocial aspects that attach to a partner, like a wife or girlfriend. None of these women were either, nor do I believe that Tiger pursued any of them for the purpose of finding a wife or girlfriend. (There are alleged to be at least 11 of them at last count that I heard.) He wanted sex. Essentially, he was looking for sex toys, with whom he almost certainly did not intend to have long or public attachments to (and, I’m sure, wishes right now that there was no attachment at all of any of them to him). Obviously, that has both homosocial and misogynistic implications all its own, but I do think that the situation is distinct compared to a wife/girlfriend/partner to whom one does expect to be publicly attached.
Too narrow an understanding of homosociality, Tom — so much of it is internal rather than external, something I realize (thanks to your comment, which is similar to many of the criticisms of the Eugene Robinson piece) that I need to explain in another post, perhaps on the morrow.
I look forward to it, Hugo. Seems quite a needle’s eye to thread, as the description of homosocial economy and competition therein implies a pretty significant external component. It would be interesting to see the internal dynamics addressed in a comprehensive way.
The only question I’d ask is, if Tiger Woods were white, would we be investing this much intensity in scrutinizing what sort of women he prefers, or wondering if he was using them as status symbols?
What if he were a good-looking Irish-American steelworker in Pennsylvania who consistently dated “hot” women at the same socioeconomic and class level, women who matched him in physical attractiveness? Would that warrant the same questions? Would it “say” anything about him other than that his tastes were very ordinary for men in a media-driven culture?
Not referring at ALL to your essay, Hugo, but there is a spoor of racism to much of the prurient media analyses of Tiger Woods’ mistresses’ skin colour and body type. The underlying question seems to be, “What is this non-white man trying to prove?” I doubt this would be asked of a white athlete, and one answer certainly would be that Tiger Woods (like millions of men) prefers “hot” women, in the popular culture sense of the word. More than anything, in my personal opinion, that just makes him unimaginative and very, very “normal.” Perhaps depressingly so.
Agreed, Michael. I remember one defense of John Edwards, that at “least” his mistress was over 40, and thus presumably past the dreaded “sell-by” date, indicating that at the least, he wasn’t playing creepy old man to a youngster. Tiger doesn’t even get that faint praise.
Re: Clarissa’s comment:
Men who are afraid to date heavier women “because of what my buddies will sayâ€
- It always surprises me, Hugo, how invested you are in maintaining this myth.
Whatever some books might say, a vast majority of men does not think or act this way. The only place I keep hearing this strange thing – and very frequently, too – is your blog.
Clarissa, perhaps you’ve been very fortunate in spending your time in the company of a relatively small, very size-positve segment of the male population. Unfortunately, the “dating a fat chick” stigma is not a “myth,” as you put it, but a very unfortunate reality, one which we can only hope most men grow out of, but often they don’t.
I grew up with threes sisters that I love dearly, and I generally support most feminist causes… That said, I will never understand why feminists think they have the right to redefine mens behavior, and this includes those who we find attractive.
I was never taught to be attracted to anyone, though my career as a photographer has greatly influenced how I view the world. I know that many people may not like my opinion, but I’ve never found over-weight men or women to be attractive. I hold myself to this same standard, which is why I’m at the gym four days a week, and why I try to maintain a healthy diet. ( If I can pinch more than an inch, then I’m fat )
Men are inherently visual creatures, it’s part of our nature, and I don’t think anyone can reprogram men to stop being this way.
Also, you forgot to mention that the “Ken doll” type is the mens equivalent to the Barbie. Though there numbers may be much smaller, there are some powerful women who have their Ken dolls, for pretty much the same reasons that men have their Barbies.
I agree, Eugene. And one aspect of the “Ken doll type” often tends to be his economic value. But women are rarely held to the same standard for seeking out rich men as men are for seeking out Barbie-type women.
Eugene, it’s like I said above – no one’s saying you have to date an overweight person, but at least be honest that your non-attraction to overweight people is something learned by living and breathing in a society that does not value overweight people. If you lived in a culture where fat = desirable, you likely wouldn’t be repulsed by it. It’s not something that organically sprung up inside you.
“Men are visual creatures” is just a load of bunk. We all have eyes. We’re all taught indirectly and directly by the society we live in what’s aesthetically pleasing and what isn’t. Men aren’t some super special snowflakes here.
“Men are visual creatures” is not a load of bunk, as study after study has shown. And there is a world of difference between admitting that one is not attracted to overweight people (for whatever the reason, including learned behaviour–which does not, by the way, obviate the fact that men are visually wired) and not dating overweight women because of what one fears one’s friends will think.
“Not referring at ALL to your essay, Hugo, but there is a spoor of racism to much of the prurient media analyses of Tiger Woods’ mistresses’ skin colour and body type. The underlying question seems to be, “What is this non-white man trying to prove?—
Very good point. If his wife and the women he is supposedly involved with were all Black, then I suspect it’d be portrayed as “Black people always fussing and screwing around on each other always got six kids from six different women.”
(Note that Tiger qualifies as Black in this society though he is not in any way “all Black” because we operate under a one-drop rule. He considers himself “Cablinasian” (Caucasian, Black, Indian, Asian).)
This also brings up the ugly question of whether he’s screwing around on his very White wife with other White women as a “fuck you literally” to White people in general. People are emotionally complex, and a desire to have something and to grind it into dust because it has such a hold on you or because you’re supposed to want it can coexist.
I’m not saying this is characteristic of Black/White sexual or romantic relationships in general, just that deep-seated racial conflicts can come up in unexpected and horrible ways. A relationship that’s supposed to be based on love and trust can be undermined by unconscious expectations.
Yes, it’s possible one can “organically” desire that which our culture deems high-status. The chances that everyone who desires the high-status is doing so without any societal pressure as a factor is approximately nil. Either that or advertisers are just wasting their money.
And come on, that old chestnut, “men are visual creatures”? That’s why women care more about the color of the curtains or the way they dress. No wait.
The studies that “prove” this generally show commercial porn to men and women and, surprise, men say they like it better than the women.
Aside from the social pressure on women to say porn is icky, well, ever look at commercial porn? Which is “prettier” — Jenna Jameson or Ron Jeremy? Even the better-looking straight male porn stars aren’t that great looking. The gay ones on the other hand are teh hawt because they are supposed to be attractive, not pile-driving stand-ins for the viewer.
“women are rarely held to the same standard for seeking out rich men as men are for seeking out Barbie-type women.”
Read the comments here on Terrell Suggs’ domestic violence problem and tell me that again.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bal-suggs-complaint1207,0,1711205,comment-display-all.story
“Gold digger” is automatically applied to any woman who marries a man with a lot of money. Especially if later it doesn’t work out and she asks for child support, let alone alimony.
“Gold digger” is also applied to men, when words like “gigolo,” “toy boy,” “kept boy,” and “stud” aren’t in the offing. And your observation about gay porn featuring hotter men than straight porn, while spot-on, does sort of makes my point–in both cases, the lust-object, whether for straight men or gay men, is geared towards male visual wiring.
>>“Men are visual creatures†is not a load of bunk, as study after study has shown.
…While I haven’t read any studies on this, but after working in the field of commercial photography for more than 20 years, and professional video production for the past 3 years, I estimate that I have personally met about 300+ male commercial photographers and about 10 female commercial photographers. With video it’s been smaller numbers, but roughly the same ratio. As I see no specific social or physical deterrent stopping women from becoming commercial photographers, which is why I think that genetic makeup may be a significant factor at play here.
…In a much cruder fashion, look at the ubiquity of male centric pornography ( hetero and gay ) throughout the history of human civilization. I honestly do not think that males were taught to be like this, but that this is something intrinsic in all males.
On the flip side, I know a couple of people who have spent most of their careers working at the romance publisher Harlequin, and they have told me directly that their audience is almost entirely female.
( more than 95 percent female )
Lastly, I’ll throw in the whole 3D design and gaming culture. I have a few friends who work as 3D designers/modelers, and the male to female ratio in their field is very similar to my experience with commercial photography. Virtually all 3D designers are male. And if you look at the whole 3D gaming world ( PS3 / XBox / PC ) the vast majority of players are male. If you don’t buy what I’m saying, then try Google Images using the term “Lan Party”, and you will find endless photos that show hundreds ( sometimes thousands ) of young male gamers ( teens and twenties ) that have dragged their computer to a large gym or auditorium to play against each other. Now take a look at the higher res photos, and see how many females you can find in the crowd…
There’s a colossal difference between saying the visual media, as it currently exists, appeals more to men, and saying that men are simply more visual. Women look far more than most men would feel comfortable knowing. It’s not that women are an iota less visual, it’s that we ruthlessly slut-shame any woman who makes it clear that she lusts based on what she sees.
The great mistake is that we invariably attribute to biology what is far better explained by socialization.
The “men are more visual creatures” myth HAS been debunked by several scientific surveys. Many men, however, seem to be overly invested in maintaining the myth. My guess is because it gives them a built-in excuse for a lot of bad behavior.
Not to mention the fact that, if you look at the whole Harlequin culture, the average romance novel reader has a very complicated way of processing the “dreamy” guy on the cover, and it almost always involves him marrying her and making a life together. There is an imperative to incorporate the full-spectrum romantic story between the pages of the novel that goes beyond merely salivating over the hunk on the cover.
The great mistake is that we invariably attribute to biology what is far better explained by socialization.
Can we repeat that 100 times, in giant, bold print? Please? And I’d like to put it on a t-shirt. And a mug, for my morning coffee.
>>but at least be honest that your non-attraction to overweight people is something learned by living and breathing in a society that does not value overweight people.
…Actually, it’s largely based upon my own experience, both physically as an activity ( sports, hiking, biking, etc… ) I like to be with a partner that I can share these physical experiences with, and intimate physical relations ( sexual and non-sexual ) I am not crazy about feeling crushed by my partners physical size.
I even find boyish looking women very attractive, even though they might not meet the modern definition of what a sexy women should look like.
Um, Michael… I don’t give a crap about Harlequin romances and wouldn’t pay 2 cents to read one. You, however, seem to know a lot about them.
If they are, indeed, as you portray, don’t you think social conditioning might have something to do with the popularity of the plot lines? That a woman is nothing unless some man loves her and wants to make a life with her? The propaganda that most women have been indoctrinated with since birth?
>>>There’s a colossal difference between saying the visual media, as it currently exists, appeals more to men, and saying that men are simply more visual.
Based upon my own experiences both as a professional and in my own personal life, I do find that the visual stimulus has a greater impact on males than females. I’ve experienced it over and over again, and I don’t believe that social or societal norms are the defining factor in the differences I’ve experienced.
Now that Eugene has brought up Hugo’s favorite topic (ha!), I would point out how the video game industry is very sexist, and how women players and designers and developers have a very difficult time being taken seriously and included. I say this as someone who’s been a gamer for 2 decades. It’s marketed at men. It’s gendered as male. Women are harassed by moronic teenage boys when they play any MMORPG or multiplayer game. It can get hostile. Is it any WONDER you see more males involved? It’s not for lack of interested, visual women.
I do realize I’m getting away from Hugo’s main point, so I’m going to leave it at this: marketing is a powerful force. Marketing convinces us we like things we wouldn’t think we wanted or needed without it telling us to. This includes marketing beauty standards.
I am not crazy about feeling crushed by my partners physical size.
This wouldn’t have anything to do with society saying that the man is supposed to be bigger, is it? Like women who won’t date someone shorter than them?
I think it’s odd you’re connecting size with physical fitness – I’m a size 4…there are women in my spinning classes who are twice my size and completely kick my ass when it comes to upping their resistance and not collapsing after an hour. I’m in awe of anyone who can feel energized and not beaten down after pushing themselves to the max in one of those classes. You’d want to be hiking and biking with them, not me.
Eugene, when most of what exists in terms of gaming and pornography is aimed at men (gay or straight), why on earth should we be surprised that men are more interested in it?
When we shame women for expressions of sexuality in a way that we don’t shame men, is it any wonder that women learn to keep their visual nature surreptitious and on the down-low? If ever there was an occasion to use the old legal maxim “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, a discussion of why men think women aren’t as visually stimulated is it.
A comment on Harlequin publishing…
Harlequin has a lot of brands these days, and most of them you would not recognize as a Harlequin publication unless you did some research, these books look just like the books from every other publisher. ( very few hunky dudes with ripped shirts anymore )
Also, some of the Harlequin brands are quite raunchy, and could pass for Penthouse forum excerpts quite easily. ( lots of hot’n'heavy raunchy sex for the reader )
“Marketing convinces us we like things we wouldn’t think we wanted or needed without it telling us to. This includes marketing beauty standards.”
Absolutely. I sometimes still find myself falling victim to marketing ploys and I consider myself pretty well informed… not to mention feminist.
And, Eugene, just because your belief system tells you that societal norms do not shape what men and women find appealing doesn’t make it true. Brainwashing is an insidious thing.
Well, Carol, how you extrapolate the I “know a lot about” Harlequin novels based on a single-line response to Eugene’s friend’s observation about their audience demographic is sort of fascinating, as is the metallic tone of your post. Like you, I “don’t give a crap about them.” And yes, I do believe their appeal a lot to do with social conditioning, as well as a lack of sophistication. That said, one doesn’t even need to point to Harlequins to make that point about media. The fact that Playgirl magazine failed as an “entertainment for women,” even with gay male buyers, suggests that visual erotica–without story, whatever the story—has less widespread appeal to women than it does to men.
Here are some posts of mine addressing issues of women and visual sexuality:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/03/14/is-porn-any-more-defensible-when-women-use-it-a-response-to-eric-and-daddyslittlegirl/
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/05/07/more-on-desire-ranking-and-body-anxiety-some-less-organized-thoughts/
How did we go from
Men are inherently visual creatures, it’s part of our nature, and I don’t think anyone can reprogram men to stop being this way
to merely
Men are visual creatures
?
There’s a big difference, as far as I’m concerned. I happen to believe most men are visual creatures, but that we’re trained to be that way from birth. Saying we are visual creatures is not the same at all as saying we are inherently visual creatures and cannot be reprogrammed.
>>Eugene, when most of what exists in terms of gaming and pornography is aimed at men (gay or straight), why on earth should we be surprised that men are more interested in it?
I’ve followed 3D gaming development for the past 10 years ( I’ve also worked as a computer programmer since the mid ’90s ), and publishers have tried everything they could to design and market 3D games that specifically targeted women ( designed and built by women ) and every time it’s been a colossal disaster. Women just don’t have the same interest in 3D gaming that men do. I see the same behavior in my nieces, nephews, and my friends kids. All of the boys are addicted to the games like they were mainlining heroin. They would easily spend weeks on end playing 3D games during summer vacation if their parents would let them. The girls play the games a bit, but often appeared bored with the experience, and choose to do something else.
I personally think that video gaming is causing a huge problem with teenage boys in Canada, in that many boys will grow up to be functionally illiterate by the time they finish high school. The boys aren’t reading many books, while the girls are leaving them in the dust. I attribute a lot of this to videogaming. Many boys would much rather play a game than read a novel.
Michael,
I’m not sure what you mean about my “metallic tone.” But I extrapolated that you knew a lot about Harlequin romances since you seemed to know exactly what the average plot of these novels is. I, personally, would have no clue what the average plot is about and wouldn’t hazard a guess unless I DID possess some knowledge of them. Maybe you assess books by some other means… such as stereotyping, perhaps?
The failure of Playgirl doesn’t say anything to prove the “men are more visual” meme. All it proves is what Hugo has been saying all along… that women are slut-shamed for daring to suggest that they are aroused by pictures of naked men.
Saying we are visual creatures is not the same at all as saying we are inherently visual creatures and cannot be reprogrammed.
True that, although most of the time I encounter that phrase, it’s being used to mean it’s inherent and unchangeable. “Men are” and “women are” statements simply aren’t very good statements to begin with, since it seems to assume, for example, that all men are X and no women are. Saying “Men are trained from birth to be,” as you did, is more nuanced and acknowledges that although outside forces are acting, not everyone is uniformly affected by them.
I’ve spent my life working in media and publishing, Carol, though you’re seriously the first person I’ve ever encountered who claims to have “no clue what the average plot” of a Harlequin is about. If you’re telling the truth, all it means is that you understand less about the topic of what women buy, or why, than would be useful to you in the context of your posts on this topic. And suggesting that women didn’t buy Playgirl because they are “slut shamed” instead of merely not being all that interested in magazines full of pictures of naked men, without context, strikes me as more than a little condescending to female consumers, and more than a little sexist on your part.
>>Brainwashing is an insidious thing.
I feel the same way when a feminist thinks that any undesirable male behavior can be reprogrammed to become the female ideal.
While I support with many feminist ideas, there are times where I feel that feminists have been brainwashed by their own kool-aid and are over-reacting. That some things in male nature are inherent to the male experience, both body and soul.
That some things in male nature are inherent to the male experience, both body and soul.
By saying that, you are erasing an awful lot of men who don’t actually have those same qualities you do.
>>I think it’s odd you’re connecting size with physical fitness – I’m a size 4…there are women in my spinning classes who are twice my size and completely kick my ass when it comes to upping their resistance and not collapsing after an hour.
From my own experience I haven’t found many overweight people that are great physical activity partners.
So, cissexual men and women are completely identical (other than the obvious physical differences) with no inherent gender-based traits?
So am I to bow to your superior knowledge, Michael? BTW, It’s not Carol, it’s CaroJ. You’d think that somehow so attuned to media and visual cues would notice that subtle difference. But, seriously, I am a woman. I know lots of women. I know lots of women who read. And I don’t know any who read (or at least admit to reading) Harlequin-type books. If you really think this is what the average woman is into, I think you have a lowly opinion of women.
And your “suggestion” that Playgirl failed because women do not find visual erotica appealing in the same way that men do, strikes ME as extremely condescending and sexist. But then, what do I know? You are the savvy, all-knowing media god.
Eugene: Your idea that the fact that the majority of photographers are men means men are more visual than women really is a load of hog wash, I mean, are you serious? So does that also mean that beacause the majority of professional chefs are men taht men are more into cooking than women? Or does the predominance of women in the fashion industry mean that women are more visual?
I can tell you from my own exerience that I LOVE looking at beautiful men, I love it, love it, love it. And there are certain parts of an attractive man’s body, the sight of which will not fail to get me hot and bothered. My female friends feel the same way and it’s interesting at the monent, culturally, because opportunitites for this are growing. For example, while out shopping with her boyfirend, my friend encountered some fit young men dressed in swimming trunks who were promoting a new shop. A huge row ensued because my friend subsequently lost her ability to concentrate on where she was going, what her boyfriend was saying etc, etc. So, please be in no doubt, we heterosexual women very much enjoy beautiful male bodies.
Can you honestly think of one trait that every single person of one gender shares, with no exceptions, across the globe and all the way back in history? Where the line between that trait and its opposite is drawn perfectly down the middle? Or do you start finding that there are an awful lot of exceptions to the rule, and that a lot of people have traits that are coded both “male” and “female”? And what the hell do you do with people who don’t identify with the gender binary, or with trans people who were assigned a gender at birth that they don’t actually agree with?
(I realize, Michael Rowe, that you specified cis people, but I don’t like erasing trans people from the conversation. They exist, they’re part of the equation.)
Actually, “CaroJ,” I have a visual impairment currently, so clearly you highl principles don’t include being attuned to much beyond what concerns you personally, much less basic courtesy, sensitivity, or good manners. No sweat, though. That’s on you. On the other hand, yes, on the topic of why magazines fail, or how books are marketed, or to whom, or why, I’ll take the rather clumsy “savvy, all-knowing media god” label from you, on the understanding that since you know nothing about the subject, it wouldn’t be hard to be a “savvy all-knowing media god” in conversation with you on this topic.
That said, it never seems to stop people like you from constantly declaiming the victimhood of female consumers, never deigning to allow that they might be able to make up their own minds about what they like to buy, or why. It’s interesting that while you fume and fulminate with self-righteous didactic feminist splutter, you’re too unsophisticated to differentiate a point I was trying to make, which was the difference between “visual erotica” and “visual erotic without context.” Since you’re clearly an expert, you’re miscast ranting on a blog page with your “creative” screen name. You should be on Madison Avenue explaining marketing and advertising to the clueless people who rake in billions every year (obviously by accident) predicting media trends, identifying what women (and men) are interested in buying, and why. The publishing industry has been waiting for you for decades–don’t hold out.
B, I agree 100%. Absolutely essential.
>>By saying that, you are erasing an awful lot of men who don’t actually have those same qualities you do.
This happens with almost any type of defined attribute, there will always be differences and exceptions to your definition.
>>Eugene: Your idea that the fact that the majority of photographers are men means men are more visual than women really is a load of hog wash, I mean, are you serious?
Yes, I am. I haven’t found any other reason why there are so few women involved with these professions that require an extremely high level of visual acuteness.
Like it or not, there are some biological differences between men and women, though I have no idea if it’s hormonal brain chemistry or genetic programming that is the source of these differences.
I’ve always been fond, Eugene, of great male photographers like Diane Arbus, Lee Miller, Dorothea Lange, Leni Riefenstahl, Annie Leibovitz. Oh, wait.
Way, way, way too many exceptions to your rule. I can keep going with name after name after name after household name. Perhaps they all had high testosterone is what you’ll tell me next?
>>I’ve always been fond, Eugene, of great male photographers like Diane Arbus, Lee Miller, Dorothea Lange, Leni Riefenstahl, Annie Leibovitz. Oh, wait.
Hugo, if you make a list of all famous or semi-famous photographers and film-makers from the modern world, you will find that women are in the minority.
I completely acknowledge that there are many great female photographers and film-makers, but proportionately they represent a significant minority in this profession, and I personally don’t believe that socialization is the main reason for this.
Michael,
You call me condescending and sexist, tell me you’ve spent your life in media and publishing, accuse me of lying about lack of knowledge of Harlequin romances and then tell me that I lack basic courtesy, sensitivity, or good manners? Seriously?
And my one line (not totally serious BTW) about my screen name being misread is cast by you as “ranting”? This is what men have been doing to women for ages. When we don’t immediately agree with whatever point you’re trying to pound into our tiny, little ladybrains, you accuse us of getting all emotional.
I can see that it’s no use trying to debate a feminist issue with you. Your bias is all too obvious.
You also seem to be lacking in reading comprehension skills too, CaroJ. Either that, or just wilfully ignorant and weighted down with the need to be right. My “bias” is the need to look at things as they are, then decide what they actually mean, whether I like the result or not. Your bias is that you have an agenda hanging around you neck the size of a motel sign.
You’re right. It’s no use you debating with me, or with anyone for that matter.
<<I personally don’t believe that socialization is the main reason for this.
Again, you can believe whatever you want. Doesn’t make it true.
And I was also taken aback by your claim that the discrepancy in the numbers of men vs women photographers means, somehow, that men are more visual. Possessing a certain level of visual acuteness (whether or not that is gender related, and I BELIEVE that it is not) is not equivalent to liking to see naked pictures/porn featuring the opposite sex.
Men and women have been pushed down different career paths forever. Doesn’t prove that men are better at math because there are more male mathematicians, or men are more visual because there are more male photographers or women are better caretakers because there are more female nurses. Social conditioning is, again, a very powerful tool.
And I can tell you that I would be in a much different position (both personally and professionally) today if it were not for my feminist awakening.
CaroJ, you do know, don’t you, that “liking to look at naked pictures/porn featuring the opposite sex” isn’t a “career path,” right? If conflation was an Olympic sport, you’d be Goldengirl.
Michael, Michael,
Your bias is apparent to all. You know nothing about me, yet have leaped to all sorts of conclusions. I hardly call that looking at things as they are. I call that a very different type of “bias” than you are willing to admit to.
You have nothing to add to this conversation. Please stop addressing me, and I will give you the same “courtesy.”
Michael,
WTF? where the hell did you get that?
And you accuse me of a lack of reading comprehension?
Was speaking for “all,” explaining everyone else to themselves, deciding who and what one has to add to the conversation, or telling strangers that they can “believe what they want” but it isn’t true (because you’re the only one with the “truth”) part of your “feminist awakening” too? Or did you always assume that everyone agreed with you?
You remind me of Margaret from the Dennis the Menace cartoon, or the bossy girl at summer camp everyone was ready to drown by the end of August. I will be happy to stop addressing you, but I will address any point of yours that I feel is worth addressing in the context of the discussion. You do not dictate to me, nor do you tell me whether or not what I have to add to the conversation has value or not.
Where did that blast of hot air come from? Must be some all-knowing god-like creature who must impart all his worldly knowledge on us lesser female-type creatures who dare to have, you know, actual knowledge and opinions about stuff that should be the province of teh menz.
It’s been real, Michael. I’m out of here. But, please, send me a copy of your next best seller. Oh, wait…
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Margaret, And no, I still won’t marry you. Love, Dennis
Interrupting the Michael and Carol lovefest to respond to Eugene, who wrote:
Hugo, if you make a list of all famous or semi-famous photographers and film-makers from the modern world, you will find that women are in the minority.
I completely acknowledge that there are many great female photographers and film-makers, but proportionately they represent a significant minority in this profession, and I personally don’t believe that socialization is the main reason for this.
The exact same thing could be said about black photographers too. Is there a biological reason why African-Americans make up a disproportionately small percentage of renowned photographers? What’s the difference between why blacks aren’t represented in galleries and why women aren’t?
Can we simply say that both men and women are visual creatures? Does it matter which gender is “more” visual? Clearly, all else being equal, men will prefer good-looking women, whatever constitutes “good-looking” in their eyes. Equally clearly, all else being equal, women will prefer good-looking men, whatever constitutes “good-looking” in their eyes.
There may be some minor variation between the genders, but the variation within each gender is certainly going to far overwhelm any variation between them.
As to what we find attractive, I would agree that a lot of it is culturally constructed, but I’d also argue that it doesn’t necessarily follow that we can change our preferences. We can probably change the preferences of our children (theoretically, anyways, if we could isolate them from all the media and peer influences etc.), but once a human reaches adulthood a lot of patterns are settled in pretty deep. People can change (and obviously Hugo is a stark example of that), but when they do the change is usually a variation on a theme. Once a brain is mature it doesn’t realign itself easily.
Hasn’t it been shown that biology has a lot to do with who we’re attracted to? Different eras have had different ideals for women’s bodies–but they all have a similar waist-hip ratio–the very ratio that indicates high fertility. Doesn’t matter if they’re thin or more plump. As for facial features, we tend to be attracted to symmetry, and again, that is an indicator of health and fitness. It makes sense that millions of years of evolution would result in people who are most attracted to those who are most genetically fit.
On the visual arts and whether they have a higher appeal to men vs. women, I find it rather unconvincing that women “just haven’t been marketed to” and that’s why many niches of visual media have such an overwhelmingly male market. Women are said to account for somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of discretionary spending in the economy. If it’s just a case that they haven’t been marketed to, versus having differential preferences, then a lot of very smart people have been just leaving a big pile of money on the floor, supposedly the same wizards of marketing who can somehow “sell” most or all of the male population a particular ideal body image. (however it is that one “sells” or “buys” a body image in the first place. Is there a category on Amazon for those?)
Men are taught to find “hot†what other men find “hot.†The whole notion of a “trophy girlfriend†is based on the reality that a great many men use female desireability to establish status with other men. And in our current cultural climate where thinness is idealized, a slender partner is almost always going to be worth more than a heavy one….The key thing men need to do is get honest about their own desire to use female desireability to establish status in the eyes of other men.
I’ve read this odd bit of feminist dogma over and over here, Hugo, and I’ve never seen it taking place in real life. Not to say it doesn’t, but I suspect you’re overstating the case.
The simple fact is that men are attracted to physical beauty, and the way most straight men define physical beauty does not necessarily line up with the definition preferred by feminists and the PC police. The irony is that, whenever you do one of your “look what a great feminist I am” victory laps with a post like this, you fail to notice just how, shall was say, selectively misogynist you are.
In the feminist world, if a woman is blonde, young, beautiful and in shape, she has no value as a human being. (And before you think this is me doling out stereotypes, sorry, but no, this comes straight from feminists I’ve dealt with. When I worked on my college paper, a feminist once wrote a letter to the editor vilifying a student pinup calendar that had been published, and I quote her; “The women in this calendar aren’t real. They aren’t women.“) The only reason men go for such women (and not dowdy, middle-aged, overweight, embittered feminist women like they should) is because they want “trophies,” which is all those women are good for anyway. An overweight and unattractive woman is a human being; a beautiful and desirable one, only a commodity. If only these men realized they’d be better off by seriously lowering (if not abandoning altogether) their standards of physical beauty and instead started dating feminist women, then they’d be better people overall, and those snooty blonde bitches would get their comeuppance. Hah!
Since you insist men get honest about their desires (and I always have been, thanks), should not feminists themselves practice a little honesty, and admit that their collective hate-on for pretty women and the men who desire them is nothing more than jealousy?
Whoops, typo in the above: “shall we say” in para. 2.
Ah, Martin, but just try going to a large group of feminists, such as any feminist collective blog on the internet, and try pumping out any gems such as, “Real women have curves.” It’s always a collective pile-on of people reminding you that commenting on women’s bodies like that isn’t acceptable no matter what shape they are, and that models and skinny women are real women, too. Feministing had a post recently that turned pretty hostile because someone praised a teenage band that sang a song about Barbie needing to eat a sandwich.
There’s a line between protesting an unrealistic beauty standard that most people can’t reach (and into that goes the un-realing of real women by doing things such as excessive photoshopping) and actually commenting on women’s actual bodies. Maybe you’re just missing the nuance.
Whoa, lot of male chauvinism in this thread. Are you unaware that Gloria Steinem was a Playboy bunny? She’s not the only socially defined attractive woman who is a feminist.
Personal experience cannot be extrapolated to the greater world with the kind of universal wisdom many, like Eugene, would like to believe. If you told a fish that it could breathe out of water because you can, you’d kill the fish. Try listening instead of saying my “exception” proves the rule. I can quote stats all day about the number of people who would like to be professional whatevers and still the percentage remains fixed over time. That’s not proof of anything. You say women don’t want to be photographers. I guess they don’t want to be U.S. President either since none has ever held the job. Hmmmm, what a conundrum.
Pingback: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » “Men Are Visual”
I haven’t read all 60-some postings here, but to go back to Michael’s first posting re: all of the attention being paid to Tiger’s choices of women: I agree that there is probably a racial element to all of the analysis. That being said, I believe that if Tiger were “all white” and he had 10-11 (or whatever the latest count is) mistresses who were women of color, there would probably a lot of analysis of why he was attracted to women of color as well.
Martin, if you think I’m making this all up, what do you think the word “trophy” in the ubiquitous phrase “trophy girlfriend” conveys?
Well, to be fair, who applies that term? I can’t remember the last time I heard someone refer to their “trophy girlfriend” or trophy whatever. That term seems usually to operate as an assumption by third-parties.
FWIW on the visual side, funny enough, the lady I’m seeing now is probably the more visual out of the two of us (she does 3D computer modeling and design semi-professionally). I was a touch non-plussed when I found out that her laptop had newer and better graphics cards than the gaming rig I built myself. (chuckles)
Since you insist men get honest about their desires (and I always have been, thanks), should not feminists themselves practice a little honesty, and admit that their collective hate-on for pretty women and the men who desire them is nothing more than jealousy?
If *some* men kept their preferences confined to their personal life you might have a point; instead, too many men allow their attraction to women to cloud their judgement at the expense of professionalism, politics (Berlusconi, ahem) and other spheres of life.
I suspect that this is the resentment; and it is something men complain about as well, as it often contributes to benevolent sexism, which actually directly hurts men the most (it hurts women as well but in more nuanced ways, which was what your “jealous feminist” was likely alluding to.
As far as jealousy is concerned, this quote–told to me by another man, who had it told to him by yet another man–says it all: “Show me a beautiful woman and I’ll show you a guy who is tired of fucking her”. Not exactly something to be jealous of there.
Do beautiful women have better or more stable partnerships? Are they happier overall in life? Are their partners more loyal? I wonder.
And what about studies that demonstrate that the vast majority of people marry partners of roughly equal attractiveness? The visual schtick really only goes so far. It looks good on paper and brain scans, but dating competition tends to even out many of the differences in gender preferences, at least for us regular folk. (Outliers like Tiger are not indicative of the population.)
Does being beautiful as a woman even get you laid more? I could be jealous of that… Oops. Nope! A new study claims that for short-term partners (one night stands, etc) women become even more picky regarding physical attractiveness (but I thought women aren’t visual, doh!), while men lower their standards.
Michael Rowe:
I very rarely think, let alone asy, this about anyone, but you strike me as the sort of guy who could stand to cultivate a relationship with Jesus. You don’t seem to be able to carry on a conversation with a woman; but maybe you could sustain a oonversation with the Lord. At any rate, please feel free to try. (It might be a good idea to think about making the conversation a long one.)
Of course, it could be that you can’t communicate with women because most women just can’t function at your level. Somehow, though, I suspect that most of the men you meet don’t measure up to your standards either. But (lo!) this is a problem you’ll never have to face while doing the sleeve-dangle tango with the som of God. It’s all the more recommendation for your placing yourself in His way.
So by all means find Jesus. Let Him have you…
“I haven’t found any other reason why there are so few women involved with these professions that require an extremely high level of visual acuteness.”
Your view seems to be obscured.
There are differences between men and women. Period. Should we get all hung up on these differences? No. I think we’re more alike than we are different. Nevertheless, there are differences. It’s easiest to prove the differences when they can be measured. Sports is a great place to start. Why are men, in general, stronger than women? Because we have roid factories in our pants. That’s why couch potato 50 year old men have greater crush grip strength than young, highly-trained women. If you don’t believe me, check out a peer reviewed journal on physiology.
So . . . . does anyone actually believe that this roid factory in our pants would just affect our muscles and not also impact our brains? There’s a whole lot that goes into attraction and we aren’t exactly sure how hormones influence that. Besides the visual thing, there are pheromones, voice timbre, etc.
As for Tiger, the guy needs counseling, a 12 step program, and lots of prayer.
The latest buzz on Tiger is that Elin is laying down the law: either he gives up golf or she leaves (presumably with the kids, and with north of $100 million). (Sighs.) For four years of marriage, one that obviously Tiger didn’t intend to be that exclusive a commitment, he gives up a calling in which he has long been a world-class talent. It should just bear mentioning that the desire for homosocial approval doesn’t just extend to a desire to prove one’s sexual prowess. I doubt that Tiger’s ill-advised choice to wed at 29 was entirely free of socially-imposed constraints.
More differences between men and women are socially dictated than physically dictated, and girls like to play sports just as much as boys. Cling to your Mars/Venus concept if you want, but it just doesn’t make that much difference.
The key thing men need to do is get honest about their own desire to use female desireability to establish status in the eyes of other men.
What’s wrong with that? We’re a status-y species. You can program that to some extent, to reflect your feminist values; then you end up with men using their wives’/girlfriends’ feminist credibility to gain status in the eyes of other (feminist) men.
Is “man, my girlfriend is really awesome at deconstructing patriarchy” really superior to “man, my girlfriend is really hot” in the status game?
“Is “man, my girlfriend is really awesome at deconstructing patriarchy†really superior to “man, my girlfriend is really hot†in the status game?”
Why, yes, it is! Thanks for asking.
I have to say that I really object to the tone that biology is destiny. “We’re a status-y species” is just another variant on it. This really creeps toward the eugenics/social Darwinism school of prejudice, and that really stinks. Social constructs may feel genetic because they’ve lasted so long, but they aren’t. There is evidence of an ancient civilization in the Indus valley that was cooperative and peaceful for generations. Competition and violence isn’t inevitable.
Why’s it better? It’s two different kinds of performances that are being used by men as status markers; but it’s still performance.
bekabot, you strike me as someone who could cultivate a relationship with a therapist. And a spell checker.
I’m a little late to the game here, but I did want to reiterate B’s comment to Martin that if you go anywhere, physical or internet, that has a large number and wide variety of feminists, you will get you ass handed to you if you suggest that a thin woman or a beautiful woman is not a “real woman” or somehow inferior to a woman that is heavier or spends little time on her appearance.
Regarding video games, I can only offer an anecdote. 40% of the World of Warcraft players I know personally are women. I usually pose as a man on World of Warcraft and occasionally close out of the chat channels and block people because of the nasty misogynist bullshit that’s rampant there, mostly from teenage boys. Examples, guilds called “Sapped Girls Can’t Say No” (a sap is a fighting move that knocks out the opponent), declarations apropos of nothing that “girls don’t play wow” or “girls suck at video games”, a person in a magic-using class advertising that he is happy to sell portals to other in-game locations to other players with “VinnySan’s Sexy Portals. Oh! Yeah! Stretch that Fucking Hole!”, and rampant use of the word cunt. And that was just in a two hour period yesterday.
Which is to say that I can imagine that a number of women do not play video games because the environment is so hostile to women, and that a number of players that people believe are men are actually women posing as men to avoid harassment. It helps that my avatar is a seven-foot-tall, barrel-chested space-goat like this: http://preview.tinyurl.com/Draenei-male
I have to say that I really object to the tone that biology is destiny. “We’re a status-y species†is just another variant on it. This really creeps toward the eugenics/social Darwinism school of prejudice, and that really stinks. Social constructs may feel genetic because they’ve lasted so long, but they aren’t. There is evidence of an ancient civilization in the Indus valley that was cooperative and peaceful for generations. Competition and violence isn’t inevitable.
Object away. Are you under the impression that your objection has some impact on reality?
I wouldn’t say that biology is destiny, in the capital-D sense of “you have a penis, you are therefore x, y, z”. But it seems fairly evident that biology is in fact destiny if it’s questions like “are humans competitive or cooperative by nature” (answer: both).
I am sure there are all kinds of archeological evidences for all kinds of societies. I am equally sure that however egalitarian, or more likely, however bloodthirsty and savage, those societies are, they still have status and competition in some form or another. There are no human communities today that do not possess these characteristics; what the status comes from, the nature and rules of the competition, these may vary.
But there are no permanently peaceful hippie communes of love and tolerance where status and competition are mysterious words that the innocent natives do not comprehend. That’s the idle fantasy of embittered New Englanders grumpy that industrial society feeds people better than pastoral society. The Indus Valley society undoubtedly had its merits compared to ours, and it equally undoubtedly has some type of status markers and conflict. All societies do. It’s built in to the animal – possibly mediated and shaped by the society, but not created by it. Amish people struggle over who is the more humble; Jesus hippies have conflict over whose turn it is to clean the communal kitchen.
You don’t have to like it, but if you want to pretend that it isn’t true nobody else is obliged to take you seriously.
Hi Mike:
Well, I’ve said it before and I will say it again: your best bet is to locate a catechism (anybody’s will do) and start studying it, hard. That’ll take your mind off your troubles (at least temporarily) I promise it will. One great thing about catechisms: they don’t contain typos–at least the ones not run off on copy machines don’t. Which should be a load off your mind, overburdened as I can tell it is.
How can I tell? I can tell because you haven’t denied a thing I brought up. Women aren’t good enough for you and men aren’t either–dead silence on that score. Confess, my man, confess. I nailed it, didn’t I? I know I’m right, I just know I am–you’re such a classic. Museum quality. In the world of the future I predict they’ll have whole anthropology departments specifically set up to study guys like you. (Too bad that’s a future I will never see.)
@Robert:
Depends on who you ask, someone who’s hotness exceeds their patriarchy-deconstructiness or vice-versa? Status games work there too.
@Marilyn:
Well, we are inevitably biological and did evolve (and are still evolving), ancient civilizations included. Just about everything about us necessarily has a biological component, even if it also requires a social or functional component as well for its full realization, especially sexual attraction which is driven by our reproductive and social instincts. The debate usually is over how much of any particular trait about us owes itself to biology compared to social or functional dynamics. You seem to be conflating inevitable and constant “competition and violence” with evolution, which is an old (and now generally considered erroneous) 19th-century view. Modern evolutionary theory recognizes that the ability to cooperate for mutual benefit and survival, both within and across species, is as adaptive and promoting of evolutionary fitness as the ability to compete is.
“You seem to be conflating inevitable and constant “competition and violence†with evolution, which is an old (and now generally considered erroneous) 19th-century view.”
This is the exact opposite of what I said. As regards biology, you equated status-seeking with it, which I categorically impugn, as I doubt a biological basis for many social constructs. We are organisms, therefore everything we do is biologically determined? Nuh uh!
We are organisms, therefore everything we do is biologically determined? Nuh uh!
Not everything. Much.
Not determined in it’s total form, but every thing we do and are is inescapably contingent on and influenced by our biology to some degree. The only question, which is a very open one that we continually seek answers to the more we learn about our genes, is how much or how little a role biology plays. No one has a definitive answer to that in most human realms that amounts to much more than a conclusory assertion of belief.
Respectfully – b.s.
Dark skin protects blacks from skin cancer, important in the African climate. Monthly ovulation means men don’t need to sow their seed in every available receptacle. They can produce an offspring from one woman about every year. So, um, why is there this myth that men need to have sex all the time? I think it’s not biology. I think it’s a social construct. Physical attractiveness also has nothing to do with sowing one’s seed, nor is it correlated with women more likely to be raped. Biological? I think not. Start questioning your b.s. assumptions about biology, since obviously it doesn’t apply in these very important evolutional cases.
I think you pretty much answered your own question there with reference to “one woman” vs. “every available receptacle.” Ask Genghis Khan, whom DNA evidence suggests is the direct ancestor of one out of every 200 men in the world today.
Many attributes that are considered physically attractive correlate with overall physical and genetic health (such as facial symmetry) as well as fertility. Those are obvious links to reproductive fitness. It follows that in terms of seeking a prospective mother of one’s offspring that a prospective father would invest energy and resources into providing for and protecting both the mother and the offspring until they reach sexual maturity, selecting based on those traits would be a viable strategy.
Addressing an alternative strategy, since you apparently wanted to discuss rape from the standpoint of reproduction and evolution, I’d point out that from that standpoint, rape amounts to something of a “low-investment” reproductive strategy from the point of the rapist. The fitness or fertility of the target matters little given the minimal expected contribution of the rapist to the raising to sexual maturity of any offspring arising from the act. (This isn’t to discuss the moral implications of rape in any sense, any more than examining the reproductive strategy of the infamous parasitic ichneumon wasp is an examination of the morality of the behavior of that creature, whose existence so vexed 19th century naturalists’ attempts to reconcile the observed natural world with belief in a benevolent Creator. Natural ≠good.)
(Just wanted to add, examining the reproductive strategy of HIV or smallpox would be another good example. There’s a good case to be made in my view for viewing rapists effectively as parasites.)
Rape is not a repreoductive strategy at all, nor was I correlating the two. There is a myth that pretty women are raped because they arouse men. We know that is patently untrue. “Many attributes that are considered physically attractive correlate with overall physical and genetic health (such as facial symmetry) as well as fertility. Those are obvious links to reproductive fitness.” Really? Where’s your data? In previous years, fatness was considered attractive. This is a fashion, not a genetic imperative. If you insist on misreading me and bringing in unsupported assertions, this really isn’t much of a discussion.
Regarding facial and body symmetry most specifically, check out the work of Randy Thornhill and Steven Gangestad at the University of New Mexico. Nancy Etcoff’s book “Survival of the Prettiest”, and David Buss’ “The Evolution of Desire” might be worth a look too generally on the research that’s been done in biology and psychology about what goes into perceptions of physical attractiveness.
While social conceptions of physical attractiveness tied to body type (and correlated with BMI) have fluctuated over time, probably due to social expectations, there has historically and across cultures been a remarkably stable trend of a waist-to-hips ratio centered around 0.7 being regarded as most attractive, irrespective of overall body type. That measure also correlates strongly with estrogen levels, fertility, and risks of a number of chronic health conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and ovarian cancer). (See Devandra Singh, Female Mate Value at a Glance: Relationship of Waist-to-Hip Ratio to Health, Fecundity and Attractiveness, Neuroendocrinology Letters 23 (2002)).
“Rape is not a repreoductive strategy at all,”
Yes, it is. Rape occurs widely in the animal world (there’s that “Natural =/=good” thing again), so there must be some adaptive value in it.
Yes, fatness was/is considered attractive when it correlated with social power, prestige, and wealth. Now that it’s anticorrelated with those things, it’s considered unattractive. No surprises, though I wouldn’t call it fashion.
Can we stop blaming Tiger Woods for absolutely everything? Golf did exist before he made the sport big and I doubt people will lose interest in the sport because of Tiger’s personal problems. He’s human – he’s fallible – as we all are. While he’s off putting back together his life – let’s remember him for what he was great at – playing golf! Bogged down from all the negativity and need some inspiration – check out this cute post: Tictacdo – Hurry back, Tiger!
Let’s all remember that Tiger Woods is just a man -albeit, a man with a whole slew of personal problems. Not uncommon for someone who gets famous and super-rich, at a super-young age. Like they say… with great power, comes great responsibility. Let him figure it out and let’s leave him alone in the interim.
@Tom:
The 0.7 ratio for women as a universal “evolutionary” preference has been debunked. In fact, these will not be the first or the last claims about EP to be called into question because of inherent research bias (Western culture =! humankind) and overreaching conclusions that ignore the apparent rapid adaptability of human mating behaviors.
http://www.livescience.com/health/081203-hourglass-figure.html
“Until now, scientists (and apparently Western society) thought a curvy figure trumped other body shapes. The idea was based on results from medical studies that suggested a curvy waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 or lower (meaning the waist is significantly narrower than the hips) is associated with higher fertility and lower rates of chronic disease.
In addition, past research has revealed that men prefer a ratio of 0.7 or lower when looking for a mate. The preference makes perfect sense, according to evolutionary psychologists, because the low ratio is a reliable signal of a healthy, fertile woman. Along those lines, Playboy centerfolds tend to have a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.68, Cashdan found.
However, women around the world tend to have larger waist-to-hip ratios (more cylindrical than hourglass-shaped) than is considered optimal by these medical and social standards.
Specifically, Cashdan compiled data from 33 non-Western populations and four European populations, finding the average waist-to-hip ratio for women was above 0.8. So if 0.7 is the magic number both in terms of health and male mate choice, Cashdan wondered why most women exhibit a significantly higher ratio.”